DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 213/2015
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MUNESH KOHLI S/o SH. N.K. KOHLI,
R/o G-9/22, SECTOR-16,
(NEAR JAIN BHARTI PUBLIC SCHOOL),
ROHINI, DELHI-110089. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1.MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,
PLOT No. 21/14, BLOCK A,
NARAINA INDL. AREA, PHASE-II,
NEW DELHI-110028.
2. TEERAT TELECOM,
SHOP No. 97, BLOCK-B, SEC.-17,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 10.02.2015
Date of decision:16.05.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant purchased a Micromax Canvas Gold A300 mobile handset, IMEI nos. 911338900003957 & 911338900023955 for a sum of Rs.22,000/- vide bill no. 3121
CC No. 213/2015 Page 1 of 5
dated 22.06.2014 from M/s Cariano Telecom, 302, 3rd Floor, Mangalam Place, Sec.-3, M2K, Rohini, Delhi-110085 which is authorized seller of OP-1. The complainant further alleged that some problem occurred in touch screen of the mobile handset just after purchase of the mobile handset. In September-2014, the touch screen of the mobile handset stopped working completely and the complainant informed OPs about the problem. On 01.10.2014, the complainant went to OP-2 and told about the problem and OP-2 duly examined the mobile handset and told the complainant that the mobile handset need to bear expense of Rs.7,000/- more for display touch screen being working and the complainant agreed to pay the amount and OP-2 further told the complainant that the process would take time so the complainant should left the mobile handset with OP-2 andcollect some other day and the complainant agreed and left the mobile handset with OP-2 and the slip was provided by OP-2. Thereafter, the complainant visited so many times to OP-2 but OP-2 neither returned the mobile handset nor replaced and after some visits the complainant found gate of OP-2 was locked and the complainant approached to the customer care of OP-1. However, all were vain and the complainant never got any satisfactory reply or his mobile back whether in corrected position or in the position as was deposited to OP-2 and the mobile handset is still with OP-2 since 01.10.2014. The complainant further alleged
CC No. 213/2015 Page2 of 5
that on 12.12.2014, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.12.2014 to OP-1 which was duly served upon OP-1 but OP-1 neither gave reply of the legal notice and nor correctednor replacednor returned the complainant’s mobile handset without any reason and the complainant further alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP-1 to pay Rs.22,000/- as the cost of mobile handset paid by the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. Earlier the Counsel for OP-1 appeared on 18.03.2015 and sought the adjournment to file written statement for 15.07.2015. But none appeared on behalf of OPs on 15.07.2015, 16.02.2016 & 07.04.2016 and as such OPs have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2016.
4. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of bill no. 3121 dated 22.06.2014 issued by OP-2, copy of job sheet no. 31657-1014-12541817 dated 01.10.2014 issued by M/s CarianoTeleocm, copy of legal notice
CC No. 213/2015 Page3 of 5
dated 11.12.2014 sent by the complainant through his counsel to OP by speed post alongwith postal receipt and acknowledgement card and copy of aadhar card of the complainant.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.The case of the complainant has remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notice ofthis case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant. It seems that they have no defence at all.
6. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile handset tothe authorized service centre of OP-1 within warranty period and strangely the locks of the door of the premises of OP-2 were found closed and it seems that OP-2 being the authorized service centre of OP-1 after receiving the mobile phone of the complainant has left the place. It was the duty of the authorized service centre of OP-1 to rectify thedefect once for all or to replace the product. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint frequently in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, OP-1being the manufacturer is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
CC No. 213/2015 Page4 of 5
7. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.22,000/- being the cost of the mobile handset on return of the dispute mobile handset, accessories & original bill to OP-1.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
8. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 16th day of May, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 213/2015 Page5 of 5
